The B-I-B-L-E!

Do you remember singing, “The B-I-B-l-E, yes that’s the book for me”. Well, you can place your confidence and trust in the acurracy of the Holy Bible! Watch this clip from an interview with Lee Strobel.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Author: Kevin W. Bounds

Kevin W. Bounds (B.S. Bible and Theology, Lee University) serves as the pastor of West Green Baptist Church in West Green, Georgia. He is the teacher of Biblical Literature at Citizens Christian Academy in Douglas, GA. He is married to Amber, and they have two children.
View all posts by Kevin W. Bounds

2 thoughts on “The B-I-B-L-E!”

How disingenuous to claim to have evidence and say things like…
– “from the first century”… some pieces, barely… well over a full lifetime after the alleged events
– “tied to eye witnesses”… where is the evidence of that? an assertion only. at least he didn’t say it was actual eye witnesses
– “credible historical data” … if he’s talking new testament, then no. just a few fragments about Christians (not Christ) starting in the 3rd century
– “returning from the dead” … where is the evidence of that? yikes
– “manuscript evidence” … lots of copies means popular, not true. he didn’t mention there are more scribal discrepancies in these manuscripts then there are words in the New Testament
– “incidental details in archeology” – sure, some city names but never events. should future historians believe in Spider-Man comics because New York is a real place?

He’s counting on believers not fact checking these things. Have all the faith you want, but don’t pretend there’s evidence.

Paul,
I would like to thank you for taking time to comment on my post, respectfully. Although, we have differing opinions, I am willing to have a discussion as long as it is civil. Again, thank you for commenting.

It is obvious that we view the Bible from opposite vantage points. You see it through skeptical eyes, but I look to it in faith, but please do not mistake my faith as mere fideism. The Bible has withstood the scrutiny of skepticism over the ages. I will attempt to counter your comments. Of course, to accept the Bible as God inspired revelation there will be a measure of faith, but this faith is not without factual support.

First, you object to the New Testament Gospels originating in the first century and allege that the recording of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was a “lifetime after the…events”. This is a common misconception. It is historical fact that Ignatius of Antioch was quoting portions of the Gospel of John before AD 110, thus making this Gospel of earlier composition. Yet, this Gospel is viewed by many to be the last written. In fact, many scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to around AD 55-65. This date can be asserted, because of the internal evidences that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. For example, the author of Matthew recorded Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Jewish Temple (Mt. 24:2), but never alludes to the fact this event occurred before the Gospel’s composition. In addition, many believe in Markan priority, thus, dating the Gospel of Mark around AD 50-60. I have not even mentioned the author of Luke/Acts leaving off with Paul alive in his narrative. It is a logical assumption that Paul was still alive at the close of the book of Acts.
Why is this significant? Because if Jesus of Nazareth was executed in approximately in AD 30, that places these written accounts only 20-30 years after the event. Not a lifetime as you propose. The culture in which this period occurs was an oral society. It would very easy to pass information in this society orally. For example, in Judaism of that day rabbis have been recorded to have memorized the entire Pentateuch. And in fact there is evidence that some oral traditional patterns in the Gospels.

Secondly, this short distance between the events and their recording refutes your assertion that there could be no eyewitnesses. In fact, I believe this is why the gospel spread so rapidly was due to the eyewitness testimony. Remember this was not the era of internet or even a primitive printing press, so word of mouth was the prominent mode of transmission. The disciples proclaimed the resurrection to those that were very knowledgeable of events, because of their geographical location. If they knew it to be false, the movement would have been stifled. Nevertheless, what if the people actually believed, but were mistaken about the resurrection? Even the enemies of Christ did not deny his miracles, morality, or even the empty tomb! All they would need to do was to produce a body. Case closed the resurrection is a fraud, but they could not! Also, if the disciples were lying about the whole thing, history records them dying martyrs deaths, but for what they knew to be a lie? That doesn’t make sense either. The fact is the resurrection took place and they were faithful witnessed to it.

Furthermore, as far as “credible historical data” is concerned you can read ancient historians like Jospehus and Tacitus to name only a couple. Unlike your “Spider-man” illustration Jesus was a historical figure whom performed great wonders that no one at the time denied. They may have had differing opinions on how he could do such things, but still the actions were not deniable. Also, about historical record, archaeology has given names of cities as you mentions, but also people too! For many years, scholars thought Pontius Pilate was not a real character in history. They even attacked the credibility of the Bible. But guess what? Archaeologist have proven he did exist. This is just one example.

Even furthermore, you mentioned the scribal discrepancies and I will address them. Yes, there are discrepancies in copies, but only minor ones. Keith E. Gephart a professor at International Baptist College in Tempe, Arizona states,It is a commonly recognized fact that 80-85 percent of all the manuscript evidence is in total agreement even on such matters as spelling and punctuation. [He added in a footnote that the percentage “rises considerably” when spelling and punctuation differences are eliminated.] …. [S]ome of these variants do affect the theology of those particular verses. But even in these instances, our doctrine is not affected since there are so many other verses which teach the doctrine in question.

In conclusion, I understand you may have come across many Christians that exhibited mere fideism, but I am not one that has checked my brain in the church foyer. I have studied the evidence and I am convinced that the Bible is the Word of God. However, no amount of logic and reasoning will bring you to faith, but they can bring you to the threshold. It is up to you to take step through the door. Again, I thank you for your comments.